>> be up-to-date in the latest in publishing with evs podcast about books with current nonfiction book releases, plus bestseller lists as well as industry news and trends through insider interviews. you can find about books on c-span now, our free mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. >> host: it was in 2003 that philosopher and author in linguist noam chomsky first appeared on this program, "in depth." and we've invited him back to take your calls and talk to you one more time. since 2003 he three he has written dozens of books, one of those books was "consequences of capitalism" ." here's professor chomsky from

2021 talking about one of his more recentlk books. >> major poll just came out from pew research, major polling agency,, and which they asked people, they give people a choice of 15 serious problems, ask them to rank them in terms of urgency, divided by republicans and democrats. among republicans the very last one at thehe bottom was global warming. at the top was illegal immigrants and the debt. the debt incidentally became a problem last november 4. up until then the debt was fine. republicans were creating it to

enrich very rich people so there was no problem. november 4 biden took it over, might use to help others, or people, terrible. major problem. it's not that the people who said that actually believe it. it starts with the here in the bubble in which they are contained. they listen to the murdoch tv station, ox news, read the murdoch press and that's what you hear. whenen you're stuck in that bube that's what you believe. so theth real problems are illel immigrants, terrible problem. the debt certainly became a problem. at the bottom of the list is destroying the environment in which life can benv sustained. all of these are signs of the collapse not only of the arena for rational discourse, but just general social collapse. the social order is collapsing.

it didn't just happen by itself. it happened because of a plague that was set in motion 40 years ago. we discussed a lot of it in the book. it's the plague of neoliberalis neoliberalism, was actually started in the '70s, massive business campaigned institute it. but it took off with reagan and thatcher. if you look at their prescriptions, it's perfectly obvious what's going to happen. so reagan's inaugural address said the government is the problem, not the solution. decisions have to be taken out of the hands of government. well, they don't stop being made. where are they going to be made? inhe the private sector. they are goingng to be made by powerful corporate tyrannies, which is what corporations are,

unaccountable to the public. the government of course as a flaw. it's partially accountable to the public, can be controlled somewhat by the public. private tyrannies are free, no accountability. the second was milton friedman, the economic guru who pronounced that corporations have one responsibility to their owners, shareholders, period, a management. nothingg else. corporate rights are the gift from the public. there's plenty of advantages that come frompl incorporating. it is a gift but they do not have any responsibility. just to themselves. these two things together, and decisions over to private tyrannies who have no responsibility than to enrich themselves. margaret thatcher comes along

and says there is no society, just individuals. somehow managing on the market that they are supposed to survive in. survive in. the first step that both reagan and thatcher took was to destroy any possible defense against this assault. their first steps, first come over to attack labor unions with illegal measures like strikebreakers. that opened to door to corporations to do the same. the one-way way people have to defend themselves, by organizing, taken away. put all this together, you would have to be a genius to figure out what is going to happen. actually, 40 years later it was studied by the rand corporation. super respectable american corporation.

they tried to estimate the transfer of wealth robbery, we should call it, the transfer of wealth from the lower 90% of the population, middle-class and working-class, to the very top, which turns out to be a fraction of 1%. their estimate was about $50 trillion during the 40 years of neoliberalism. that is a vast underestimate that includes other things which are now on the front pages. when reagan came in, he opened the spigot for businesses to do whatever they like. tax havens had been illegal before then. and blocked by the treasury. opened it up, there's probably another tens of trillions of dollars. changed the rules on corporate management, which the government

said, allowing ceos to be compensated with stock options instead of salaries. that means anything you can do to raise the stock, like buybacks, may ruin the corporation but it is good for you to get a higher income. that is the result. also, executives were permitted to pick their own board, the board that would determine their salary. what do you think is going to happen? take a look at the figures. ceos salaries have skyrocketed. carrying all of top management along with them. extended to the public sector, university presidents, hospital -- and so on. meanwhile, the majority of the population gets by from payday to payday in a precarious existence.

it is a major assault on the population. it has happened all over the world. australia, europe, not as severe as in the united states, but severe. people are hager -- people are angry, disillusioned, resentful, easy prey for demagogues of the trump variety who says, i will save you. and it will end in distress for everything. why should i believe with the centers of disease control say about the pandemic echo they are probably just -- pandemic echo they are probably just run by crooks in washington. so, you have a breakdown of the social order. it is happening over much of the world. >> live from his home in tucson, arizona where he is america plus professor at the university of arizona, noam chomsky. professor chomsky, what issues

-- what is on your mind these days? noam: well, there are lots of things going on in the world. right now, one of the major ones is, of course, the war in ukraine. there's many others. there are background issues. we are, like it or not, the human species, racing to imminent disaster. there are two huge problems. one is the growing threat of nuclear war. which would, basically, end modern civilization as we know it. the other is the destruction of the environment. inexorable. we know it has to be done, we are not doing it.

if we do not turn that corner soon, we will reach an irreversible tipping point and it will be a matter of slow moves towards catastrophe, irrevocable catastrophe. that, in addition to what is right on the front pages, the background of it. there is plenty to be on everyone's mind. >> professor chomsky, you have been active for decades on nuclear war, economic policies, social justice, what is the progress you think you have made, or that the world has made? noam: there has been, over long periods, there has been progress. we happen to be -- we happen to have been, for the past 40 years, in a period of serious regression.

but, there are ups and downs before. if you think back to what society was say, in 1960, 60 years ago, this was a society in which we literally had laws against miscegenation, which were so extreme that the nazis refused to accept them. the one drop of blood loss. -- laws. the rights of women were still not recognized. it was not until 1975 that women had the legal right, guaranteed legal right to serve on the federal juries. that means, to be regarded as

peers, as persons and not property. which they basically were in british common law that the country to go over. they were, in many respects, minimal rights were not respected. well, that has changed. that is an improvement. beginning in the late 1970's, there was a shift in the nature of the state capitalist system, which was described in the previous comment, the move towards the neoliberal system that has been quite harsh for the general population here, and across the world.

an enormous concentration of wealth and a precarious existence for many, which has led to understandable feelings of anger and resentment, distrust of authority, contempt for institutions. that can take positive forms. let's have changes for the better. there are such elements that can also take very dangerous forms. i am old enough to remember 90 years ago when there was, as today, a very serious threat, the threat of the depression, deep depression, much worse than anything today. my extended family was first immigrated, new increments --

new immigrants, first-generation immigrants, working-class mostly. they were, and this was -- there were two ways out of the depression. one was taken by the united states. the u.s. led the way towards a social democratic revival, committed to and -- by a revived militant labor movement. organizing, militant labor tactics, led the way to the new deal measures which pioneered postwar social democracy, an enormous lift for the population. that was one way out. the other way out was what happened in europe, which sank to the depths of fascism.

those were the ways out. actually, there are residences today -- residences -- it would be utterly ironic if the united states continues to unravel and move towards a kind of proto-fascism, while europe hangs onto the -- of social democracies that have resisted the neoliberal assault. and perhaps revise these very positive tendencies. it doesn't have to. the choice is in our hands. meanwhile, there are imminent problems. the war in ukraine is on the front page headlines. it is not the only one.

literally millions of people are facing starvation in afghanistan. millions of people facing imminent starvation. people who a little bit of money can't go to the markets where there is food, to buy food for their starving children because the banks are shut. they can't get access to the money. where is the money? new york. the u.s. refuses to release to the people of afghanistan their own money. the banks are supposed to be fiduciary institutions. you place your money in them, with the assurance that it is yours to attain when you need it.

not in this case. the u.s. government has stepped in, not just in this case, but others too, to block people from getting their own money. there is a pretext for this. the pretext is, we have to assure that victims of 9/11 have a right to compensation from afghans who had nothing to do with 9/11. the rural people of afghanistan who are starving had nothing at all to do with 9/11. in fact, those with good memories will recall that the taliban offered total surrender, which would have meant handing over to the united states the suspects in the 9/11 attack, the al qaeda suspects.

remember, at the time, they were suspects. the fbi informed the press months later that they suspected them, but did not have definitive evidence. but, the taliban offered to turn them over. the u.s. reaction was, we do not do surrenders. romney. echoed by george bush. rumsfeld, i am sorry. echoed by george bush. george w. bush. now, the afghan people have to starve to death because we hold their funds. and there are other things happening in the world. thankfully, there seems to have been an agreement for a two month reduction of fighting in yemen.

the worst humanitarian disaster in the world, according to the united nations food -- united nations. the saudi government, which is the main force responsible for the disaster, along with the united arab emirates, saudi arabia had been blockading, intensifying its blockade of the only port in which food and oil can be imported into the starving country. the official death toll last year was 370,000 people. the actual death role is unknown. again, the united nations warns that hundreds of thousands of children are facing imminent starvation. the saudi and emma rossi --

emirate air forces cannot function without u.s. equipment and u.s. intelligence. u.s. trading. we are assisted by britain, a few others, that the u.s. is in the lead. these things can be changed. the things that can be uppermost in our mind. what can we do? what can we do about suffering, major problems in the world? whether it is existential problems the existence of the species like global warming or nuclear war, or whether it is the terrible, miserable suffering of the people of

ukraine, under brutal and violent aggression by the russian army. people starving to death in afghanistan. or yemen. we can mention other things, but what can we do about all of those things? that is what we have to be asking ourselves. that is what should be on everyone's mind. >> this is your chance to talk with noam chomsky. if you have been interested in public policy for the last 50 or 60 years, chances are you have heard of professor chomsky, perhaps even read some of his hundreds of books. the numbers are on the screen. for those of you of the east and central time zones. 8201 for the mountain and pacific time zones. you can also send a text message. please encode -- please include your first name and your city.

we also have several social media ways of getting a hold of us. we will scroll through those on the screen. i want to quote professor chomsky from one of your most recent books, requiem for the american dream. you say that some of the problems of government in the u.s. today stem from an excess of democracy. why do you say that? noam: actually, i did not say that. i quoted it. the quote was from a very important study, about 40 years ago, 50 years ago, 1975, it is the first study of the trilateral commission. the trilateral commission is an international commission of liberal internationalists.

you get a rough idea of their political stances by the fact that the carter administration was drawn almost completely from within the ranks. so, that group of people in the united states, they -- their counterparts in europe and japan, liberal internationalists were the trilateral commission. they came out with a very important report called, the crisis of democracy. they were responding to the activism of the 1960's, which considerably civilized society. and led to the developments that i mentioned briefly before. the trilateral commission warned that there is a crisis of democracy. the crisis is what you quoted,

an excess of democracy. there is too much democracy. what is happening, they described during the 1960's, is that segments of the population that are supposed to be passive and obedient began to try to enter the political arena to press their own demands. these are what are often called special interests. young people, old people, working people, women, farmers, minorities, these people are not >> these people are not supposed to be making noises in the political arena. they're supposed to be quiet, quiet, obedient, apathetic show up every couple years to push a

button, what's called an election, go home and let their betters decide for them, what to do. well, that excess of democracy they said is putting too much of a burden on the state, can't do it so we must have what are called moderation and democracy, people should return to their festivity on obedience. and they also talked about particular sectors of society like the universities. >> they said the universities and the churches are not doing their job of indoctrination of the young. their phrase, not mine. they have to do better indoctrination of the young so they're not out there in the streets protesting the vietnam

war, calling for civil rights, for women's rights, other things which are just too much. so that's the liberal internationalism. there was another major document that came out at about the same time, also in response to the activism of the '60s. it's the powell administration by -- it was meant to be secret. this is the man who richard nixon appointed to the supreme court, justice powell a little bit later. powell issued a memorandum to the chamber of commerce, to the business world and it was, in a way similar to the commission report, but much harsher. the document was intended to be confidential, but surfaced

pretty soon. so it was available publicly and was then. the memorandum urged the business community to take forceful reaction to the attack on business that was going on in the '60s. as businessmen are being persecuted, the rate of profit is declining. we're under attack. the universities have been taken over by crazed radicals, but boy macusa, almost nobody heard of, the bits world is under attack by ralph nader, who is demanding that automobiles have safety measures built in and moving for consumer rights and consumer safety in other domains. so the business world can't tolerate all of these attacks.

and then he went on to say, look, we have the resources, we have the money. we can fight back. we can refuse to accept this attack on our power and privilege, and in fact, that resonated and it was a part of the background which led to the new liberal reaction that i was quoted in the early remarks before the program began, the roughly 50 trillion dollar robbery of the middle class and working class that's taken place in the past 40 years since they started in the late quarter years, escalated under reagan and britain under thatcher, spread around the world under u.s. power,

structural adjustment programs imposed by the imf, which under u.s. domination, which had a devastating effect in much of the global cells, more than i can talk about now, but going back to excess as democracy, that was the phrase from the trilateral commission report and i've referred to since. but those two documents set a kind 6 ideological framework, one from the liberal internationalists and another from the business-run right wing. they kind of set the frame which over the coming years they knew the programs were developed, imposed. we've been living under that

assault for 40 years with pretty harsh effects. i shouldn't -- marsher harsher effects in other countries. so what actually happened, in the late '70s there was a -- what was called a pretty high inflation in the united states and the carter administration responded to it with a very sharp rising interest rates, which increased under the reagan years. well, during the 1970's countries like mexico and other countries to the south had been

urged by the world bank, u.s.-run world bank, they'd been urged to take expensive loans, mostly from u.s. banks, city banks, citigroup conglomerate and many others and they were deeply in debt. well, when the high interest rates were introduced, their debt is linked to the u.s. interest rates. they were in deep trouble. they couldn't pay. they began to default. they had to take aid, loans from the international monetary fund which imposed harsh conditionalities, they had to cut back social spending. cut back efforts of development, and other similar

measures which devastated the populations and horrifying effects in much of the third world. yugoslavia, which had been more or less functioning country, fell apart under the impact of the structural investment programs which intensified, i think, conflicts, laid the background for the horrors that took place in the '90s. the case was actually ruwan da in the 1970's, there had been significant conflicts between hutu and -- mainly the same conflict that my friend and i had written about it in the 1970's. 1980's rwanda, like other

countries, was hit very hard by the structural adjustment programs and the society which was already very fragile collapsed, and the conflict that existed were intensified. well, i won't go into the details, but that's part of the background for the horrendous developments that took place a few years later in the 1990's. events have -- actions have consequences. maybe you don't anticipate them, but you should. well, that was the third world, the global south and the rich countries like the united states. it's pretty much what was described by the rand corporation. well, that's all part of the neo liberal reaction to the former period of what's called

sometimes regimented capitalism, state capitalism based on new deal measures. it's worth remembering how far we've moved from these days to take dwight eisenhower. the last conservative president in the traditional sense of the word, conservative. eisenhower, if you read his statements, sound like a flaming radical today. eisenhower said any person who doesn't accept new deal measures, the measures of social welfare developed into the but teal deal and continued in following years, anyone who doesn't accept these measures doesn't belong in our political system. that's eisenhower. anyone who denies working people the right to unionize,

affirm essential right, such a person doesn't belong in our political system. well, that was the 1950's. continued for some years into the '60s. then we get into the reaction, which escalated under reagan, compare eisenhower with what you hear today from the remnants of what remains of the party that he represented. that's quite a change. it tells us a lot about the regression of the past 40 years. >> professor, let's get some of our callers involved here and let's begin with barbara in oak bluff, massachusetts. barbara, please go ahead and ask your question of noam chomsky. >> thank you, peter. thank you, mr. chomsky, for your amazing career. continuing with president

eisenhower, his famous statement about the emergence of the military industrial complex. so we've all watched decades of grotesque spending on weapons, but now we see this conflict in ukraine where tiny munitions like stingers and javelins and switch blade drones and other kinds of drones, these tiny microweapons are able to take out the elephantine weapons of the banks, the jet fighters and naval ships. what do you make of this transition to microwarfare and its implications? thank you. >> thank you, ma'am. >> it heralds a new era of warfare, which is more

dangerous, more they think, to everyone, but let me just ask a slightly different question, if you don't mind. i mentioned before that we should be concerned constantly with what we can do and what we should do. well, one thing we can do is send weapons and there's an argument for that. ukraine is under foreign attack from a brutal military force. which has no mercy and they have a right to defend themselves. but there's another question, what is our goal? do we want to escalate the war, more ukrainians die, more destruction or do we want to move towards a peaceful negotiated settlement?

one of the most respected individuals in the u.s. diplomatic core, ambassador chas freeman, highly respected properly individual with a wonderful record. a couple of days ago he came out in an interview and said u.s. policy seems to be to fight the russians to the last ukrainian. that's the policy. we'll keep -- as we've formulated, no feasible goals na can lead to an exit from this tragedy. so we can keep pouring in arms, 0 we're good at that, and more ukrainians will die and more russians will die and goes to further escalation.

there is there a possible diplomatic settlement? yes, there is. freeman outlined it once again. everyone knows what it is. the settlement, this has been going on for 30 years, i should say, not just started today. the settlement is a rough outline a neutralized ukraine, not part of the military block and an internal settlement that will garp tee the rights of the russian-speaking minority providing probably some form of federal solution like switzerland, belgium, others, in way minority groups have formulated an agreement called

minsk two. some version that have has to be the possible outcome. and as freeman again stressed, if we don't want to fight for the last ukrainian, we have to offer vladimir putin an escape hatch. he has to have some way to escape from this without what amounts to suicide. we're going to face war trials. sanctions can happen no matter what happens. we're telling him fight on to the last ukrainian and it might sound old and, you know, winston churchill impersonation, sounds very

heroic. we have to come out with a proposal. we have to support, i should say, the proposals that are on the table have been through a long time for a settlement that offers putin some kind of escape, like it or not, that's a necessity. and it will have to be based on neutralization of ukraine and some kind of diplomatic arrangement for a degree of autonomy for the russian oriented areas. and those things are on the table. the u.s. isn't supporting. the u.s. actually has an official policy, unfortunately, it doesn't seem to have been reported in the united states

press, at least i can't find it, but the policy is there. you can read it in government documents, actually i've quoted it repeatedly in things i've been writing, the policy was set in september 2021. september 1st, 2021 there was a joint statement of the u.s. and ukraine, notice, this is a couple of months before the russian invasion. the document is basically a policy statement of the united states, reiterating and amplifying the policy that had been in effect for many years. it's worth reading. first says the door to the ukrainian entry into n.a.t.o. is wide open. we're inviting you to join n.a.t.o. and it says the united states will intensify the sending of

advanced military weapons to ukraine. it will continue with joint military efforts in ukraine, the u.s.-- it's called n.a.t.o., but it means u.s., ukrainian military operations. all of this placing weapons within ukraine aimed at russia, all of this is part of the enhanced n.a.t.o. admissions program. you should really look at the exact wording. i'm paraphrasing it, but it's roughly that. well, that's a call for the horrors that have followed and it didn't just start then. it's been going on for actually 28 years. you look back to the clinton --

to the -- let's go back to the george h.w. bush administration. the first president bush in 1990-1991. the soviet union was collapsing. there were intensive discussions with george bush, james baker, the secretary of state, his russian counterpart mickhail gorbachev, the germans, helmet cole who would extensively involved in this. the question was what would be the shape of the post cold war world with the soviet union clansing? well, there were several visions. gorbachev's vision was what he called a common european home from the atlantic, from lisbon

all the way, no military blocks, come on european home, a true accommodation. this was actually extension of a program of charles de gaulle in earlier years, that he -- and macron recently has been pressing something similar, a common european home from the atlantic to the yurals. with russia in a european, maybe a eurasian peaceful system with no military blocks. that was one vision. the other one, this goes back 50 or 60 years, the u.s.

vision. called atlantaist, based on the n.a.t.o. alliance in europe which the u.s. controls. that's a deep issue in world affairs. goes back to the end of the second world war. will it move to the european common home along the lines of the goal and gorbachev's proposals in 1990. well, the u.s. had no interest in-- to impose the european common home, but it did have a compromise version and agreed by bush and baker and helmet

cole and germany would be unified and a part of n.a.t.o. which was quite a concession on russia, you remember their history. germany alone had practically destroyed russia several times in the past half century. to allow unified germany for a hostile military alliance was not a small step. gorbachev agreed on one condition, that n.a.t.o. would not move one inch to the east beyond germany. in fact, n.a.t.o. forces wouldn't even go to east germany. that was the condition, explicit, unambiguous.

you want to see the actual wording, look it up on the online national security archives, georgetown university, which has a record, authortative record of the official document. no ambiguity. well, gorbachev agreed to that. the bush-baker administration adhered to it. they adhered to it. clinton came in a couple years later. the first few years of the clinton administration he also adhered to the agreement. by 1994, with his eye on domestic politics, minority voting groups and so on, clinton began to vacillate. began to offer some hints of the east european countries in

n.a.t.o. >> presumably with the vote, clinton invited several eastern european countries on the borders of russia to join n.a.t.o. well, boris yeltsin was then president. he was very close to clinton. clinton intervened to have him elected in 1996. yeltsin bitterly objected to this, so did gorbachev, so did every russian leader. u.s. statesmen, george kennon, jack matlock, and former ambassador to russia under reagan leading russia specialist in the government, numerous of henry kissinger, numerous of others, pointed out to washington they're making a terrible mistake. i should say that includes the

current cia director, william burns, and former cia director standfield attorney. the -- he practically resigned in protest. 50 specialists in russia wrote a warning letter to clinton saying this is extremely dangerous you should not be doing it. they're having russia become militant and aggressive rather than a common european home. clinton went ahead. george w. bush tore it so shred. 2008 he asked ukraine to vote,

but vetoed by two. >> and the diplomates, russian specialists and so on, understood perfectly that for russia there are some definite red lines that no russian leader will tolerate, none. yeltsin, gorbachev, anyone, that ukraine and georgia right within the russian strategic hostile military alliance. they will never accept that. the u.s. forged ahead, september 2021 statement amplifies it, states it explicitly, we will go ahead and we will continue to arm

ukrainement ukraine. if you want to understand from the russian point of view? it's as if mexico were to join a chinese run, military alliance and carry out joint exercises with russia and we wouldn't tolerate that for one second, it would never, not mexico, not anywhere in latin america, and remember the cuban missile crisis, incondition receivable. notice, this is no infringement on the sovereignty of mexico. mexico is essentially true nal. it's not part of military

alliance. it cannot do what i just described. it cannot join a chinese-run military alliance, carry out operations with the people's liberation army. they'll get training, advanced weaponry from china military experts place weapons on the border and washington. nobody gathers to say this, it's perfectly well understood. what is just described is the department, 2021 u.s. official policy on ukraine and russia. none of that justifies the russian aggression, which is the kind of crime that ranks with the u.s. invasion of iraq.

the hitler, stalin invasion, examples of what the nuremberg international crime. crime is aggression, not in defense. and that's nothing justifies that, but to understand is not to justify. to understand is important if we care about ukrainians. and even if we care about world peace because this thing could escalate easily to a major conflict with the u.s., with n.a.t.o., we could go on to a terminal nuclear war. so we try to understand, and again recognizing, that understanding is not justified, the people i mentioned like

george kennon, william burns, and no longer with us, would no longer be justifying as they explain the background for it in which we play a role and continue to play a role by not today developing diplomatic options supporting those already on the table, going back to ambassador freeman, that was his point, a crucial point as long as our position backed by england is, you're finished, putin, you're done. war crimes trials, permitted sinkses, no way out for you. we're telling putin as freeman, i'm quoting him, we are going

to fight you to the last ukrainian. that's not something we should be doing. we should be moving towards peace. we spend a lot of time talking about the kinds of weapons we can provide, okay, we're doing it. but the real thing we should be talking about is how can we move towards a peaceful settlement that can end this. >> again, you're watching book tv on c-span2, join us is noam chomsky since his first appearance on the program written dozens more books. the next call for him is maureen toms river, new jersey. >> i'm a great admirer of yours, it's a pleasure to even speak with you. i wondered about your thoughts and any optimism about the

recent starbucks location in new york had unionized and now that the amazon war house in staten island is unionizing. if you could see any of that having an effect and em boldening people throughout the country to start unionizing. >> thank you, maureen, let's get a chance. >> professor chomsky, she's talking amazon and unionizing and your thoughts about the other-- . well, labor has been under bitter attack throughout this whole new liberal period. you may recall that reagan's first action was to attack

unions using what were internationally regarded as illegal means, scabs, permanent reemployment workers. there's a better attack on the -- looking at the same programs in england, opened her programs the same way. that opens the door to private corporations, saying, we can do it, too, caterpillar. others launched activities also using banned, internationally banned they thodz like scabs and so on. the laws were changed to labor organizing. much harder. there is a national labors relations board.

it barely functioning. bill clinton came along, another attack on labor. nafta, the agreement with-- next going to canada. was attacked by the labor movement. in fact, they were in favor of an agreement, but not this one. labor came forth with the proposal, the labor action committee. proposal for a north american free trade agreement which would be based on the principle of high wages, high growth. they were second by the offensive technology. congress's research bureau has been disbanded.

congress want seem to me the information. they came up and an effort to build a high growth wage system and clinton went through with the system, low wage, low growth, but great for profits. well, that was later extended to the -- who i found, the arld trade organizations and others have the same pool. we have some evidence how fate an attack it was. a yum of years after --

# under rules, took an understudy of the effects of nafta on union organizing. turns that the effect was dire. nafta, along with the refusal of the government to aplay labor laws led to a stop restriction to -- if there was an effort unionizing. they could put a banner transfer operation mexico, they could call in meetings and you go ahead of organizing. we're going to move in. >> they didn't intend to do it, but the warning was enough.

a major industry has developed, and there are major industries working on what used to be called scientific methods of strike braking. lots of techniques, many of them illegal, but if doesn't matter if you have pa this. and there's been a sharp dine in the labor movement. this is happening at a time when workers want to unionize. they look at workers' preference you. >> the density of unionization declines under attack from a state corporate program of attacking labor. that's what it amounts to. well, going back to the amazon

strike, it's a dramatic break from that despite the enormous advantages that corporate distance has been given. despite the enormous advantages, zone workers and managed to win an election. they will immediately be under attack by amazon, what i've described, but there's a small victory, there are a couple of years. there are signs of revival, of labor, actually started in non-unionized areas in red states like my state, arizona. west virginia, began with teachers. teachers who are not, you know,

unionized. not just for higher wages, but for better conditions for children. part of these proms has been to defund education, so as not to fly to-- in fact we had a one to destroy the public education system. it's one of the achievement of american democracy. the century, united states pie yeared mass education. it's an american achievement at

the university level, too. these grants for universities unfortunately taking away native american land wasn't pretty, but these planned grants enabled the establishment of major universities. state-- the united states has great state universities. mit, where i taught all my life was actually a grand -- land grant. that was an enormous contribution. i quoted the crisis of democracy calling for more indoctrination of the youth, a attack on the educational system. there was also defunding --

funding for state colleges and universitieses has sharply declined. also at the k through 12 level. trying to destroy the major contributions of the united states towards democracy and public well fwar and it's-- the public welfare, and they're calling for better funding for schools so a teacher doesn't have to sit in front of 50 kids unable to teach because there are no resources and there's no possibility of dealing with the children. the teachers were fighting not just for better salaries, which they richly deserve, but for better conditions forks children and schools that got a lot of support. i happen to be living in arizona now, drive around

tucson where i live, there were signs on lawns all over the place supporting the teachers. signs on businesses, support the teachers. they won referendum. arizona passed a referendum calling for more funding for the schools which they badly need. the republican legislature won't do it so the battle continues, but this is a major youth of it has extended to the major laeb movement labor movement. not enormous, but scattered victories, starbucks, there was a general motors victory, amazon was the latest. but there's a long way to go,

the national labor relations board has to be reconstituted so that it actually carries out it's legal, from business, which devastated the labor union since reagan. the biden administration has been trying to do it, but it's opposition with the republicans, so it can't get through. recently, very good representative appointment who was pro labor, was blocked. and there's a big battle to overcome. i should remember, as i said, i'm old enough to remember the early 1930's.

and it's kind of similar. the labor movement in the 1920's has been crushed. the united states has a violent labor violence, much worse than europe. woodrow wilson, with the worse is it, the maybe movement. 1920's, will many nothing left. early 1930's in the wake of the depression began to revive. i think that militant labor actions, sit-down strikes. under that impetus, there was a sympathetic administration. you've got the new deal measures which greatly improved the lives of americans enormously and led the world to

the post war social democratic movement. well, maybe today, but it's going to be a battle, a major battle. amazon victory is a striking example of what could be done, but it's going to be a long hall. the attack on laub labor continues right now, relentless and take this. >> we have about an hour left with our guest noam chomsky this afternoon and we're going to continue to take your calls. noam chomsky has appeared on c-span 28 times. national reputation sprang forth in 1967 when he wrote a responsibility for-- of intellectuals essay in the

new york review of books and 1989 he gave a lecture on thought control in modern society. here is a portion of that. >> well, the title of this walk, as i suppose you saw where, is thoughts control and democratic society. the title is intended to be paradoxical, it should be. it's about control and indoctrinization, consistent and there for have control in a democracy society. there's a standard view about this matter. the standard view is expressed, for example, by supreme court justice powell, who speaks of what he calls the societal purposes of the first amendment, that is enabling the american public a certain control over the political process. he happens to be speaking about the media and their crucial

role in affecting this purpose. and similar remarks could be made and should be made about the educational system, about publishing, about intellectual life generally, but the media are particular important in providing free access to the opinion and therefore allowing the democrat sick process to function. >> the media, there, the new york times called, traditional jeffersonian role as to counter balance power. if this one takes jefferson serious, he may or may not have himself, he presumably would have gone further not just counter balancing power, but counterbalancing other concentrations of power and those that developed in the post jeffersonian period. corporate power which is the dominant feature.

all of this seems -- it's worth bearing in mind there's a contrary view, probably the dominant view among liberal theorists, it goes back to england 17th century. at that time concern was expressed by agitators, itinorant and there's a struggle throughout the history books. now, these people were-- in their words, people who wanted to be represented not by

lords and gentry, but by men of their own kind. men who know the people's sort. >> and one historian warned by revealing the workings of power, they will make people so curious and so arrogant, they will never find humility. right after they were crushed, john lock road, laborers and spinsters and dairy maids must be told what they believe. the greater part cannot be known so therefore, they must, and as they typically do during popular revolutions, and it was not until the 1780's that the

radical democrats and the american revolution were crushed and there was no more any thought that people would be represented by people, at that time, men of their own kind who know the people's sort. and they would be represented by those qualified to rule over them, they were able to make a selection. >> and that led to the principles and those who can ought to govern, quoting john jay. i won't try to go through the history, but the rich tradition expressing the same views, it's in the present in the modern version, neebler, the analyst,

he explained that rationality belongs to the cool observer. because of the average man, he follows reason not safin a these rely on necessary illusion, i think for offering the title. this is on illusion and oversimplification that has to be provided by the myth-makers, the cool observers, smart guys, like us who know how to serve power. walter littman, two years earlier, talked about what he called the manufacture of consent, she says it's an art and in fktsy, that's appropriate because the common interests very largely ill eludes them and can only be by

a specialized class. the same concern explain a good deal of the radical movements aboard up to the early 19th century shall the czar of russian was deeply concerned about the contagion on democracy which might undermine the conservative world order, which at the time woodrow wilson led troops against the bolsheviks, and the czar a -- to the ignorant and mentally

are urged. and the same in the public relations industry, the patron sense of the modern public relations industry, edward later developed a concept what he called engineering is consent which he said is the he is tense of democracy and it something which he promised, for example in early 1950's, paving the way for the coup. in the early part of the century they vibed the task of controlling the public mine. indicating economic facts, and

an understanding of what has been called the public interest. the public mind is the only serious danger confronting the company, an at&t executive commented about 80 years ago, and those problems have been addressed ever since, the role of the art industry. there's also an academic twist to this. in fact, it's a major scene in the social sciences. one of the leading american political scientists in the field of communications, harold wrote an interesting commentary on this in 1933 in the international encyclopedia and social , and we must not succumb to democratic

dogmatism, and the judges that the elite to ensure to impose their will for the common good. the means are a whole technique, and because of propaganda. and it's ease toy do this because of the ignorance of the masses. it's important in a democracy. it's not the says they're they're-- like the whole line observed, a military state, an feudal state, if you've got a bludgeon over their head. you can control what they do. when the voice of the people can be heard, you have this

problem, it may make people so curious and so arrogant if they don't have the humility to submit to a simple rule and you control what people think for their own good to assure that they don't get out of control. >> and that was noam chomsky in 1989. one of 28 appearances professor chomsky has made on c-span over the years. he joins us now live from his home in tucson, arizona. and the next call for him is from michael in miami. michael, please go ahead and ask your question. >> yes, hello, and thank you, mr. chomsky for your humanity and your scholarship. my question, if you answer yes, i believe, the reason you're doing so is because we here in the south and i'm calling you

from broward county, which is probably the school district under the most attack by a governor and by-- a lot of what you've described in covering everything, i don't know if people who haven't read all of-- >> michael, what's your question? >> sure, it has to do, we've had our governor, actually come out and say that he wished to increase natural covid herd immunity in order to increase what he viewed as a benefit, but it's a very definition when you're pushing something like herd immunity for disease that's the definition of criminal eugenic genocide and using the students as-- >> okay, so covid herd immunity is the question, governor desantis in florida. >> the question is about governor desantis, covid

immunity? >> covid herd immunity, yes, sir. >> herd immunity. well, there is, unfortunately, a powerful anti-vaccination movement in the united states. desantis has played a role in it in his, not refusing vaccination, but not following policies advised by serious health officials, not florida, but elsewhere and he think that this is seriously prolonging a significant crisis. about a million americans have already died. the hospitals are overflowing with mostly unvaccinated

patients. of course, provide a pool for future, more mutations. we have a means to, if not eradicate, greatly control and diminish the harm caused by the coronavirus infections. ... and limit the possible mutations which could be more harmful. the means exist but they have to be followed. if they are not followed there will be more suffering, more pain, were suffering, more pain, more deaths, more crushing of hospitals, many hospitals

literally had to suspend normal operations just because of the overflow of largely unvaccinated patients who were filling up the covid wards. in a minor way i even experience that myself but it's been serious. so i think it's a major problem. there's a lot to do. there's more to say about this. it's critically important to get vaccinations advanced in the large regions of the world which have not had access to vaccines. there only limited access. the rich countries, europe and the united states in the early part of this plague tended to

monopolize the vaccine for themselves. vaccine european record is worse than any u.s. record in this biden administration has taken some steps to try to break through the monopolization, large part of which incidentally goes back to the world trade organization rules that i mentioned earlier which provided free trade agreement but they are not free trade. they provide extreme protectionist measures to ensure veryve high profits for pharmaceutical corporations, for mega- media corporations and others for call intellectual copyrights, exorbitantt patent rights which allow them to weigh overcharge and make

extraordinary profits, even though in the case of the pharmaceutical industry as much of the research and department is actually done at public expense, including the moderna vaccine. but the rules of the mislabeled free-trade agreements allow them toto have basically monopoly pricing rights. well, the germans have been even more adamant in protecting this then we have, but the effect has been to deprive large parts of the world of the vaccines that they need. this is a threat to us as well, not justt to them. it means again a large pool of unvaccinated people which provide the virus opportunities to mutate as it does rapidly, nobody knows what the next

variant might be. we so far have been kind of lucky in that the variants that have appeared over the years have either been highly lethal but not very contagious like ebola, or highly contagious but not very lethal like omicron. can't guarantee that will continue. well, the point is actually what i said before, the question is what can we do? well, what we can do is apply the means that are available, intensive vaccination, protected spaces for people who want to be safe from infection distancing of masks, many mechanism that can be used to reduce spread of

infection and to ameliorate the crisis, largely overcome it. so we have to pursue those measures. florida, under desantis, does not have a good record on this. >> host: jim is in california and you are on with noam chomsky. >> caller: thank you very much for taking my call. professor, it's a great honor to talk to you. my question is, basically the internet. your thoughts on it. it's not been that long since he came into being, like the last 20, 25 years things have taken over the world. so thank you veryr much. >> host: professor? >> guest: didn't quite catch it. i'm sorry. >> host: the impact of the internet over the last 20, 25 years trip . >> guest: the impact of the internet? >> host: yes, sir. >> guest: it's quite a story. i was actually present at the

origin of what is now the internet. i was in the 1950s, i was at the research laboratory of electronics at m.i.t., which is where the early ideas were formulated. it became what was called the arpanet. it later turned into the internet. it's interesting tone remember that almost, the internet was overwhelmingly like computer generally, developed with public funding. it was a largely publicly created achievement. later it was privatized, headed over to private power for profit. but it was many years later into the '90s. the internet has now become a

major phenomenon. well, it has mixed consequences. discover things that we otherwise would not have known. it offers tremendous access to information. for years i have work the on -- many years, 50 years, back to the article you mentioned -- been working on how the media operate as a kind of combination of information and endock nation system -- indoctrination system. i used to have to go to the library and look up, work with microfilm machines to try to find out what was in "new york times" two years ago. now i can do it by clicking a

button. being find things that you never would have found. like i quoted before, a crucially important document, crucially important, settlement 2021 u.s. government policy statement on ukraine. you can find that on the internet. you are not going to find it in the media even if you went to libraries you wouldn't find it. but now you can pick it up from the white house official page on the internet. that magnifies. it is a tremendous source of potential information and enlightenment. but i stress potential. it matters how you use it. unfortunately, it is often used to limit understanding and to restrict information. there's a natural tendency, you

can understand it, partially share it -- to turn at once toward the internet sites which reinforce your own positions. i know i'm going to hear the kind of things i like so i will turn to that. now, that tends to create bubbles, small bubbles of severinoorsing -- severinoors ing doctrines and ideas where people become not only ignorant on the outside but immune to it because they are hearing and getting reinforced by what they want to hear. that is a very widespread phenomenon. i think we are all familiar with it and it is quite dangerous. it is under mining the possibilities of event change and interreaction across society

which are a prerequisite for a functioning democratic society. based on an informed look rate -- electorate understanding the views of others, able to move forward. that is the basis of the healthy society. that is pretty much what it was like during the fighting new deal period dark exciting new deal period. in the noon 60's it was true over a very wide range of the, at the time, mostly younger population. i was in my 40's at the time is i was one of the old folks. but this is deteriorating. so, while the internet could be a mechanism of liberation an

enlightenment, it can also be an instrument of control, indoctrination, divisiveness, breakdown of absorb order. it has all that potential. it is like a lot of technology. take a hammer. a hammer doesn't care whether you use it to build a house or whether a torturer uses it to crush somebody's skull. the hammer is an different. a lot of technology is like that. the internet is an example. can be an enormous force for enlaytonment -- enlightenment, liberation, mutual aid an mutual understanding. but we have it make that decision. the internet will not make it for us.

>> john is call in from el paso, texas. please go ahead, john. you are on book tv. caller: i hope you don't mind it i change my question. i first asked if, was going to ask if the united nations could solve the problems in yemen and afghanistan an ukraine. but now i'm really concerned with whether or not you think that economic sanctions are an act of war. >> did you catch that, professor? noam: well, it is worth remembering that sanctions, if sanctions are carried out by the united nations, they are legal. we can ask whether they are advisable. but they are at least legal. most of the sanctions are carried out by the united states. actually, more than half of the

world's population is now under one or another form of u.s. sanctions. these have no legal authority. the united states is using sanctions wildly to person people, sometimes with some justification maybe, sometimes not. but it -- we do not want a world, at least i don't want a world in which one power which happens to have enormous force behind it, is capable of deciding who gets sanctioned. that is not a liveable world. sometimes the sanctions are grotesque. tack -- take cuba. for 60 years ago cuba has been under direct attack by the united states. it began with the can

administration. kennedy carried out a major maj terrorist war against cuba. not much discussed here but it was real and very serious and part of what led to the missile crisis that almost destroyed us. then hash sanctions were imposed. well, they continued when russian support was withdrawn an cuba faced really serious problems because it was a the limited support it was getting under the harsh u.s. sanctions regime at that amendment. the clinton administration, bill clint outflanked the republicans from the right by increasing the sanctions, increasing the torture then came the law that made it worsement u.s. sanctions

were called third party sanctions. others have to adhere to u.s. sanctions even if at the oppose them. in the case of cuba, dramatically the whole world opposes them strenuously. look at the annual votes in the united nations on the cuba sanctions. they are condemned every year. by to you they are condemned by everyone. the last vote was 184 to 2, the two were the united states and israel, which has it follow u.s. orders. it is a client state. actually doesn't even observe the sanctions but has it vote with the united states. why do other countries observe u.s. sanctions even though they oppose them? because they are afraid of the united states. it is a frightening country.

europe opposes the sanctions. it opposes the iran sanctions vigorously but it has to go along because you can't step on toes of the united states. it is dangerous. in fact, the united states has the capacity to throw countries out of the international financial system which mostly runs through new york and can carry out other measures. nobody is willing to face that. so, countries can't provide, say, sweden, medical equipment to cuba. they can't sell something that uses nickel that is imported from cuba. what is the reason for this? one of the good things about the united states is it is quite an open society, much more so than others. we have a lot of information about what or government is

doing -- what our government is doing, not perfect but a lot. a lot of material gets declassified,en like other countries. that is a very good thing. so we can look back through the records of the kennedy and johnson administrations in the 1960's and ask why the torture of cuba and it is for -- torture. the reason is, i'm quoting successful defiance of u.s. policies back to the 1820's to the monroe doctrine which established the u.s. right to dominate the hemisphere, to turn the hemisphere into a sphere of influence for the united states. well, back in the 1820's the united states wasn't powerful enough to implement it.

britain was much more powerful and impeded the u.s. but over time as predicted by u.s. leaders, john quincy adams, others, bresch support waned and american support increased and finally the u.s. was able to impose the monroe doctrine. cuba was acting in successful defiance of u.s. demand to dominate the him severe and determine what happens here. so we have to for clear them make them suffer bitterly and brutally and europe joins in, the whole world joins in because they are afraid of the united states. same with iran.

therefore the joint agreement on nook weapons signed by the obama administration 2015. iran lived up to it completely. u.s. intelligence confirms that iran completely lived up to the agreement. it sharply limited iran's capacity to develop nuclear systems whether they intended to develop nuclear weapons we don't know. they say they weren't but maybe they were. president trump dismantled it. tore it to shreds violating security council ordersment security county had ordered all countries maintain the jcpoa. trump decided i don't like it, i'm going to tear it apart so he destroyed it. then he punished iran for the u.s. violation of security

council orders by imposing harsh sanctions on iran. europe bitterly opposed that but they have to conform for the reasons i mentioned. that is now maintained by the biden administration. there is a chance that we might be able to restore the agreement. trekkie thing. well, we can look through the rest of the world. there are u.n. sanctions which one can debate whether they are right or wrong but at least they are legitimate. but u.s. sanctions have no legitimacy, nor would those of or countries if other countries were capable of imposing them. to a limited extent they do but not much. it is mostly a u.s. weapon. and we should look into them

closely. take the -- there are some about which we've extensive evidence if we want to learn. so take the clinton administration, clinton, blair, u.s. -- u.k. sanctions on iraq in the 1990's. very hash sanctions -- harsh sanctionsed a murder through the u.n. but basically u.s.a.-british sanctions. there were distinguished international diplomats who administered the sanctions. the first was an ash diplomat dennis holiday. he resigned in protest because he said the sanctions were genocidal. he said they are bitterly harming iraqi civilians.

hundreds of thousands of children are dying and the economy is being destroyed and they are not harming sa -- saddam julio jones the population is suffering and has to shelteren the umbrella of the brutal government so it strengthens the tyrant, harming the population to the point where it is general r genocidal. he resigned. he was replaced by another distinguished international diplomat. he had researchers all over the country observing what was happening, knew more about iraq than anybody in the west. he resigned in protest because, as he put it, the sanctions are

genocidal. he reiterated and strengthened what dennis halladay had said. he also published an important book called "a different kind of war" in which he described in detail the brutality and sadism of the u.s. after british sanctions and what they were doing to population while they were strengthening the tyrantment we are not a fascism i was -- fascist country but try to find it. i don't think there's a single a in united states or britain. you can find it in detail, what sanctions are like when they are applied in a brutal and sadistic manner and you can't prove it

but he kind of suggests and i think there's some plausibility to this that the sanctions may have saved saddam from being overthrown from within that happened to a lot of tyrants, brutal u.s. backed tyrants. marcos in the philippines. duvalier in haiti. in romania the worst of the gangs doctors in the -- gangsters in the soviet system supported by the united states until virtually the day of his overthrowing. within after -- one after another were toppled by internal revolts. same thing happened in south korea. possibly it could have happened in iraq but not under the conditions of the sanctions

which so punished the population an demoralized them and so forced them to shelter under the saddam umbrella that there was no possibility of overthrowing the government. cannot prove it but that might have happened. well, that is one case of sanctions where we can learn a great deal from the book. it is very detailed and instructive but we can only learn it if we try. if we decide we want to accept the indoctrination, ok, then it doesn't matter that it is a free country. well, there are other cases you can look at. the usual discussion of sanctions is do they achieve their ends. so, there's a lot of criticism of the iran sanctions, public

criticism in the united states, because they didn't work. they didn't force iran it accept u.s. demands. it is not the right question. the right question is, what right does the united states have to destroy the agreement in violates of security council orders and punish iran because we destroyed the agreement? that is the question that should be asked. what right did we have to compel others to adhere to or decision to punish iranians because we withdrew from the agreement. those are the questions that could be asked and similar questions could be asked in other cases. cube is the obvious within. venezuela, others. remember, u.s. sanctions are so widespread that they actually

reach over half of the world's population. earlier i quoted chaz freeman one of the highly regarded members of the u.s. diplomatic corps and he goes into the illegality and cruelty of the sanctions. it is worth listening to and worth thinking about. >> in your book who rules the world there is a chapter that is spwaeulted "the u.s. as a leading terrorist state" kathy in albuquerque, go ahead. caller: the one issue that weighs heavily on my mind is immigration. i have a feeling it will only get worse because of global warming. i don't know if there is

anything to do to make it better. i don't think we should turn these people away because it is not easy to leave a place they are familiar with and go somewhere. i don't know if you agree also that it will get worse because of global warming and what we can do. >> thank you, ma'am. noam: i sort of half got it but not sure if i got it completely. could you complete the essence? >> she is concerned about immigration and thinks it will get worse because of tkpwhrpbl -- global claimant change. noam: immigration is an interesting question. we don't have much time but one thing away might do is look at the u.s. record on immigration. the u.s. is in an unusual position. it has extraordinary advantages. very low population density enormous resources.

what is year lift on immigration? up until the 20th century immigrants were welcomed from europe, white immigrants. why? not a pretty story. we were wiping out and exterminating the indigenous populations. the country was being opened,for settlement and needed lots of white faces to settle it. 1920 the other centals -- or kwrpbtales were blocked. 1924 the first strict immigration restriction was inposted. the words were not used but in effect it was aimed at italians and jews. that is the effect and design of the immigration act of 1924.

many jews ended up in extermination camps because at the couldn't get into the united states. happens it include the recommendments of my extended family but that's the least of it. this law stayed until 1965. other arrangements were made which are worth discussing. i have no time for it today. today the u.s. has, it is not alone, europe is even worse. europe is even more brutal anti-immigration policies than the united states. europe has spent centuries devastating and destroying africa. it is now working hard to ensure that people escaping, trying it escape from the wreckage of european savagery can make it

european shores. europe even has a military installations in central africa, niger, to try to prevent miserable refugees from making it to the mediterranean, where at the might enter european shores. so, you want it feel good about it, europe is worse but our policies are horrendous. people who are fleeing from the destruction of their societies by u.s. terror under reagan in the 1980's, murderous terror operations killed hundreds of thousands of people, hundreds of thousands of refugees, orphans. much of it is extended. people are trying it escape.

in honduras there was a military coup in 2009 condemned by almost the entire continent, accepted by obama and hillary clinton, who basically supported it. turned honduras even into more of a horror chamber than it had been to a huge wave of flight. we now turn them back at the border or separate parents from children at the border under trump. it is disgraceful. the pope, pope francis properly said that the refuse gentlemen crisis is not a refugee crisis, it is a moral crisis of the wealthy, of the rich, of the west. well, the question that it will get more extreme, we are now intensifying the threat and danger of global warming which

will be devastating. it will lead to huge flight. countries like say bangladesh will become unlivable. post of south asia is literally going to be virtually unlivable. large parts of africa. what are the people going to do? they are going to have it flee, hundreds of millions will be trying it flee. not so great here either. in arizona where i live there's a long drought that may have very severe consequences but it is nothing like the poorer countries of the world. they are going to be shattered by this. and, yes, will there be enormous immigration problems. the way it deal with it is to stop immediately or assault on -- our assault on the global environment. we are destroying the environment which can sustain

life on earth. we must start immediately we must start immediately following the strong advice of the scientific community, by tcc, that we cut back fossil fuels right away, certain percentage every year right away into in the use of fossil fuels within a couple of decades or finished. >> host: professor chomsky will have to end it up. we will close with his quick text message to you. you have spoken for decades with conscience, woven throughout the remarks in writings in the matter of doctor chomsky. professor chomsky has to make new books coming ou this year. one is chomsky, a new world in ourou hearts, and notes on resistance both coming out this

year and noam chomsky has been our guest for the past two hours on "in depth." >> at lisa six presidents recorded conversations while in office. hear many of those conversations on c-span's new podcast, resident of recordings. >> season one focuses on lyndon johnson. you will hear about the 1964 civil rights act, in 1964 presidential campaign, the gulf of tonkin incident, a march on selma and the war in vietnam. not everyone knew they were being recorded. >> certainly johnson's secretaries knew because they were tasked with transcribing many of those conversations. in fact, they were the ones who made sure that the conversations were taped, as johnson was signal to them through an open door between his office and there's your. >> you also hear someone talk. >> jim, i want report of the number of people assigned to kennedy on me the day he died and the number assigned to me

now. and if mine are not less i want them less right quick. >> yes, sir. >> and if i can never go to the bathroom, i won't go. i promise you i won't go anywhere. i'll just a right behind these black gates. >> president to recordings. find it on the c-span now mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. >> c-span now is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what's happening in washington live and on-demand. keep up with today's biggest events with live streams before proceedings and hearings from the the u.s. congress, white house events, the courts, campaigns and more from the world of politics all at your fingertips. you can also stay current with the latest episodes of "washington journal" and find schedule information for c-span's tv networks in c-span radio plus a variety of compelling podcast. he spent now is available at the apple store and google play.

downloaded for free today. c-span now, your front row seat to washington anytime anywhere. >> weekends on c-span2 on intellectual feast here every saturday american history tv documents america's stories, and on sundays booktv bring to the latest in nonfiction books and authors. funding for c-span2 come from these television companies and more including media,. >> the world changed in an instant but mediacom was ready. internet traffic soared and we never slow down. schools and businesses when virtual, and with power to aw reality because at mediacom we are built to keep you ahead. >> mediacom, along with these television companies, supports c-span2 as a public service. >> next on booktv's author interview program "after words"

dr. deborah birx provides a first-hand account of the trump administration's response to the covid-19 health crisis and discusses preventing the next pandemic. she is interviewed by georgetown university law professor and director of the institute for national and global health law lawrence gostin. "after words" is a weekly interview program with relevant guest hosts interviewing top nonfiction authors about their latest work. >> host: welcome, dr. birx. i'm going to call you debbie. i have known you for many decades. we have all known you in the public health field, and it's a real privilege for me to be here with you to talk about your brilliant new book. i want to just start simply, you know, explain the title, "silent invasion", and the reasons hete